hankyoreh

May 13. (by Kim Bong-gyu

By Park Byung-soo and Ha Eo-young, staff writers

The government recently decided to temporarily hold off on a logistical support agreement with Japan. Seoul’s reluctance is being interpreted as an attempt to slow things down after objections back home over military cooperation with Tokyo.

Seoul still plans to go ahead with an agreement on military intelligence protections.

A Ministry of National Defense senior official said on May 15 that there had previously been plans to push for the signing of a mutual logistical support agreement and military intelligence protection agreement with Japan at a defense ministers’ meeting initially scheduled for the end of May.

But a decision was reached to wait and proceed more cautiously with the mutual logistical support agreement in view of sensitive public opinion, the official added.

The same authority said the military intelligence protection agreement would go ahead as planned, based on a perceived need for intelligence sharing with Tokyo on the North Korean nuclear weapon and missile programs.

The two countries had previously held working-level discussions after reaching a basic decision on agreements at a bilateral defense ministers’ meeting in February. Japan proposed the agreement in January. Last week, a Ministry of National Defense senior officer said that the South Korean and Japanese defense ministers would hold talks late this month on signing the military agreements.

A ministry official said at the time that “substantial headway” had been made toward the agreements being signed.

But with objections surfacing due to the idiosyncrasies of South Korea’s relationship with Japan, the push for both agreements appears to have been deemed too much to ask.

Objections were known to be especially keen over the mutual logistical support agreement. Previously, a flap occurred in late 2009 when then-Japanese prime minister Naoto Kan mentioned a plan for sending in the Japan Self-Defense Forces to evacuate Japanese citizens from South Korea in the event of a contingency situation on the peninsula.

“The mutual logistical support agreement would rule out situations of emergency,” explained a Ministry of National Defense official. “But there were a lot of misunderstandings after untrue things started going around, such as how Japanese warships would enter the waters of the Korean Peninsula for operations in the event of a contingency situation.”

The ministry still maintains that both agreements are necessary, and Tokyo is making strong demands. There is a strong likelihood the deferred agreement will be picked up again at a later date when public opinion is seen as favorable enough. In addition to exchanges of military intelligence on North Korea, including information on the country’s nuclear program and missiles, transactions in related materials, and movements, Seoul is also hoping that such an agreement would allow for humanitarian intelligence exchanges for sea disaster rescue efforts.

Another factor behind interest in the agreement was the possibility of receiving logistical support for peacekeeping activities, joint training, and disaster relief efforts.

But critics are still contending that the military agreements with Japan could give Japan more room for military intervention in Korean Peninsula issues.

Kim Jong-dae, editor-in-chief of the military affairs journal Defense 21+, said the intelligence exchanges and logistical support “form the basis for combined South Korean-Japanese operations in emergencies.”

“Japan has always showed intention to intervene in any contingency situation on the Korean Peninsula in order to protect itself,” Kim explained. “So this agreement is a major issue in that it could be the point of departure for military intervention by Japan.”

Another major concern is that such agreements might end up functioning in the interests of the military alliance among South Korea, the United States, and Japan. Indeed, Washington has consistently provided its assistance for the signing of military agreements between Seoul and Tokyo for the sake of Northeast Asian military strategy. Radio Free Asia recently quoted a US Defense Department official as saying that the US welcomed such agreements as indicative of an improved level of security cooperation in the region.

Also worrisome is the possibility of a stronger three-way “southern alliance” prompting Pyongyang, Beijing, and Moscow to step up their own “northern alliance,” resulting in heightened tensions between the two groups.

“The reason that Japan was left out of past discussions on a Korean Peninsula peace regime was the conclusion that Japanese involvement was not in the [South Korean] national interest,” said Kim Yeon-chul, a professor at Inje University.

“Our strategy now needs to be one of pursuing cooperation and accelerating that framework, not the kind of antagonism that military agreements represent,” Kim said.

Arguing that the target of military cooperation with Japan would be North Korea in the narrow scheme of things and China or Russia in the broader one, Kim said, “I’m worried about what a military agreement between Korea and Japan would mean for Northeast Asia.”

Observers also mentioned procedural issues in the lead-up to the agreements. Despite this being essentially the first military cooperation with Japan since independence in 1945, no hearings were held, and the matter was not subjected to much public discussion.

A Defense Ministry senior officer said the agreements could legally be pushed without need for National Assembly ratification. “These are agreements between governments, like memorandums of understanding, not treaties,” the official explained.

But some observers expressed serious concerns that decisions that could potentially have a major impact on the Northeast Asian security environment might end up being made in the interests of administrative convenience or military advantage rather than strategic determinations.

Indeed, Japan, which is well aware of the resistance to bilateral military cooperation among members of the South Korean public, is believed to be pushing for the agreements’ signing while the conservative Lee Myung-bak administration is still in office.

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]